Southeastern Motor Truck Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 1122 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rights and privileges , and will make them whole for any loss suffered as a
result of the discrimination.
Johnny Slater Andrew Chambers
Robert Hill James Hudson
James Hill Jerome Barker
Benjamin Gurley Charlie Pinkney -
Raleigh Boseman Arthur McIver
E. L. Bryant, Jr. ' Wilds Ezekiel
Berkley James , Jr. James Toney
Johnny Lunn ' Anderson Flynn, Jr.
Willie Mayes Prince Taylor
Howard Bruce Clifton Weatherford
Perry Taylor William Hudson
Venrow Williams, Sr.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Plywood and Veneer Workers Local Union
No. 3043, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming mem-
bers of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization , except to the
extent that the right to refrain may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our Darlington, South
Carolina, plants Nos . 2 and 3, excluding office clerical employees , guards,
watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
DARLINGTON VENEER COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ----------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Southeastern Motor Truck Lines and Warehouse and Distribu-
tion Workers, Local 688, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL. Case No. 14-CA1274. August 25,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 23,1955, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
113 NLRB No. 126.
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1123
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations with the following additions and modifications :
1. For the reasons stated in detail in the Intermediate Report, the
Board unanimously adopts the Trial Examiner's findings that the Re-
spondent, by threats, interrogation, promises of benefits, and the tim-
ing and manner of announcement of the change in working hours of
employees Davis and Floyd, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
However, a majority of the Board consisting of Chairman Farmer
and Members Peterson, Rodgers, and Leedom finds contrary to the
Trial Examiner, that the timing of the change in the work system of
these employees was not violative of Section 8 (a) (1).
The change in the work system involved nothing more than an ad-
justment of a minor segment of the purely mechanical duties of the
two employees. Prior to the change, made on or about September 10,
1954, Davis and Floyd had typed the freight bills from the bills of
lading in the order in which the latter came in and then separated them
by outgoing trailers. Under the changed system, the rate clerk or
sometimes the two girls first separated the bills of lading by trailers
and thereafter typed the freight bills according to trailers. The Trial
Examiner found that the change was economically justified, but that
its timing was unlawful because the Respondent offered no explana-
tion as to why the change had not been made earlier than September
10, 1954.2 We find this fact insufficient to support a finding of an un-
fair labor practice. Moreover, unlike the change of working hours,
the change in working system had no adverse economic effect on the
two bill clerks, nor was it announced in connection with the coercive
statements of Office Manager Randolph on September 6, 1954. Ac-
cordingly, the complaint will be dismissed as to this allegation.
1 At the hearing , the parties agreed that witnesses would not be permitted in the hear-
ing room until after they had completed their testimony , subject to the right to recall
for rebuttal purposes During cross -examination of General Counsel's witness Potts,
the Respondent brought out for the first time that in a telephone conversation between
Potts and Floyd on September 24, the latter had said that she had quit . The General
Counsel then placed on the stand June Davis and Grace Floyd, who had completed their
testimony and were in the hearing room, and also June Davis' husband, to give their ver-
sion of this telephone conversation The Respondent objected to this testimony on the
grounds that it was in violation of the rule for excluding witnesses and also involved the
impeachment of the General Counsel's own witness . We find no error in the Trial Ex-
aminer7s ruling permitting the testimony The rule agreed to by the parties specifically
reserved the right of the parties to recall witnesses for rebuttal purposes Further, as
the General Counsel was surprised by the testimony of Potts brought out in cross-exam-
ination, he had the right to introduce other evidence to show that she was mistaken in
her testimony . 3 Wigmore , Evidence , pp. 415-417 (3rd ed . 1940).
2 Member Murdock would also affirm this finding of the Trial Examiner , in view of the
absence of any such explanation , and the other unfair labor practices committed by the
Respondent.
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. A majority of the Board, consisting of Members Murdock, Peter-
son, and Leedom,-find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner and for
the reason detailed in the Intermediate Report, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee
June Davis on September 24, 1954 3 They believe that the record as
a whole supports the Trial Examiner's finding that Davis' separation
was the planned culmination of the campaign of threats against her
and that the alleged deterioration of her work given as reason for
her discharge was a pretext, as was her refusal to promise Office Man-
ager Randolph that she would do more work the next week. In con-
nection with the drop in Davis' production they note in particular that
according to the credited testimony of Davis and Floyd, the change
in their working system slowed up their work and production. The
slump in Davis' production referred to below by Chairman Farmer
and Member Rodgers was therefore an excusable one 4
3. A majority of the Board, consisting of Chairman Farmer and
Members Rodgers and Leedom, find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that the separation from employment of Grace Floyd and the failure
of the Respondent to reemploy her, were not violative of Section 8 (a)
(3) and (1) of the Act. They believe that the weight of the evidence
supports the Respondent's defense that Grace Floyd quit on Sep-
31n view of the finding that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Davis on Sep-
tember 24 , 1954, the Board considers it unnecessary to decide whether the Respondent
also discriminatorily refused to reinstate her 3 days later. The latter finding would be
merely cumulative and would have no bearing on Davis' right to reinstatement and
back pay.
* Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding
of discrimination against Davis, because, in their view, the events of September 24 and 27,
1954, are unrelated to Randolph's antiunion statements of August 30 and September 6.
In their opinion , the record establishes clearly that the change in the Respondent 's owner-
ship sparked an efficiency drive in the course of which Randolph paid greater attention to
the work performance of the bill clerks, Davis and Floyd , and found a lack of efficiency
on the part of Davis. Davis admitted on the witness stand-as did Floyd-that a bill
clerk could type 40 to 50 freight bills per hour . However, in the course of a 12 -hour work-
day on September 10, Davis typed only 61 freight bills. She did somewhat better on
September 17 when she did 218 bills in 9 hours. On September 24, the date of her dis-
charge, her work again slumped to only 80 bills during an 8-hour day . Even considering
Davis' additional duties, such as checking, separating , and splitting freight bills and
typing trailer manifests , Davis did not, on any of these 3 representative days, even re-
motely approach the volume of work output she could reasonably be expected to achieve
if she had attended to her duties in a conscientious manner. Moreover , on September 24
she failed to timely process the bill for trailer 200, with the result that its driver had
to be paid 3 hours' layover time . Whether or not she had a good excuse in connection
with this incident , Office Manager Randolph was clearly, and under the circumstances,
justifiably irritated by it. Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers agree that Randolph
bad good cause to request Davis for a promise to improve her work . Admittedly, Davis
refused to make this promise and insisted, obviously contrary to the facts , that she was
doing the best she could. Nothing in the record indicates that Randolph provoked the
discussion with Davis for the purpose of laying the groundwork for her discharge . Davis'
refusal and adamant attitude of self-righteousness therefore demonstrated such manifest
lack of a cooperative spirit , that it alone justified her discharge for insubordination.
Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers , believing that the Trial Examiner 's finding of an
unlawful motivation underlying the discharge of Davis was based not on facts, but on
conjecture , would dismiss the allegation of Section 8 (a) (3) violation with respect to
Davis.
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1125
tember 24 and failed on September 27 to make an unconditional
application for reemployment.
In substance, Floyd and Davis testified that on the evening of
September 24, Office Manager Randolph criticized their work and re-
quested them to do better, that after they had rejected this criticism
as unjustified, Randolph called Terminal Manager Childress by tele-
phone, and then asked them to promise that they would put out more
work the following week, that they again declined to make such
promise, and that thereupon Randolph told them to get their time-
cards and that he would make out their checks.
Randolph testified that he called Childress to report to him Davis'
attitude, which he found objectionable, that Childress ordered him to
discharge Davis, but gave him no authority to discharge Floyd, that
he then discharged Davis whereupon Floyd quit with the remark that
she wanted it understood that she was not being fired but was quitting.
The Trial Examiner credited Davis' and Floyd's testimony and
discredited Randolph's. The majority does not agree with this credi-
bility resolution because they view it as being in conflict with the pre-
ponderance of the evidence and as inconsistent with the inherent
probabilities of the situation. As there is an irreconcilable conflict
between the testimony of Randolph and the two bill clerks as to what
happened during their conversation, the testimony as to what hap-
pened immediately after Floyd's separation is indispensable for the
resolution of this conflict.
- Roquest, the Respondent's truck foreman in whose office the time
clock was located, testified that when Davis clocked out she told him
that she had been fired and that Floyd had quit. Choat, the rate
clerk, testified that on September 24, Randolph called him back to the
office to complete the work the two girls had left over. When he
appeared in the office, Randolph told him spontaneously that Davis
had been fired and Floyd had quit. Terminal Manager Childress
testified that he had authorized Randolph to fire only Davis and that
(,, ,'Randolph had no authority to fire Floyd, that immediately after the
separation of the two girls, Randolph called in consternation because
of Floyd's quitting; that on Saturday, September 25, he reproached
Floyd for quitting with her work unfinished and that she apologized
therefor and that on September 27 when he mentioned the fact that
Floyd had quit and had not been fired, Floyd remarked "Mr. Childress,
I consider it the same as being discharged." Frances Potts, a witness
called by the General Counsel, who supported his case and was 1 of
the 4 girls who had tried to organize the Union, testified firmly sev-
eral times that Floyd had telephoned her on the evening of September
24 to tell her that there were no more bill clerks, because Davis had
been fired and she had quit.
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover, the record is clear that when Floyd departed on Sep-
tember 24 Randolph was left with a considerable amount of unfinished
work on hand. He had to recall Rate Clerk Choat, who by that time
had already returned to his home, to help him finish that work, and
subsequently the Respondent, at considerable expense, had to transfer
an experienced clerk from out of town to fill Floyd's job until a
permanent replacement could be found. Under these circumstances,
it seems unlikely that the Respondent could have discharged both its
bill clerks in the middle of the busiest period of work just to give vent
to its antiunion feelings. It is also incongruous to believe that the
Respondent, on the day following the alleged discharge of Floyd,
would have offered to take her back if she had, in fact, been fired
because of her union activities.
The Trial Examiner did not report Choat's testimony. He did not
find Roquest and Childress to be dishonest or incredible witnesses on
the basis of demeanor or otherwise. He merely credited Davis' and
Floyd's testimony whenever it was in conflict with the testimony of
other witnesses. The Trial Examiner made a specific finding that
Potts was a credible witness. It seems obvious that he reached his
strained conclusion as to Floyd because he was reluctant to disbelieve
a part of Davis' and Floyd's testimony, once he had credited them in
connection with his findings of other unfair labor practices. The ma-
jority, however, does not feel constrained to credit the testimony of
the two bill clerks throughout. In the words of Judge Learned Hand
"nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to
believe some and not all." 5 The majority believes that Davis and
Floyd were in a state of excitement and confusion following the dis-
charge of Davis and that, therefore, their recollection was blurred
with respect to Floyd's separation. Accordingly, the majority finds
that on September 24, 1954, Floyd left the Respondent's employment
voluntarily in protest against the discharge of Davis.
As to the events of September 27, the record is clear that Business
Agent Lato, as spokesman for the two girls, requested Childress to
reinstate both. He made no separate application for Floyd, but men-
tioned both girls in the same breath. Neither did Floyd herself offer
to return. Childress, therefore, considered Floyd's application to be
contingent on the reinstatement of Davis. His testimony to this effect
is uncontradicted and appears to the majority to reflect the realities
of the situation as it existed on September 27. On the preceding Sat-
urday, Childress had discussed with Floyd her reemployment. The
conversation proceeded on an amicable basis. It was understood that
Floyd was to come in on Monday to apologize to Randolph for having
walked off the job and that after reconciliation with him she would be
5 N. L R . B. v. Unsve, sat Camera Corporation, 179 F. 2d 749 ( C. A. 2).
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1127
reinstated. Davis was not mentioned. When Floyd appeared at the
Monday conference in the company of Davis and Lato, and refrained
from speaking for herself but permitted Lato to demand her rein-
statement simultaneously with that of Davis, Childress was justified in
considering this behavior to mean that Floyd had made common cause
with Davis and was only willing to apply for employment if Davis
would also be taken back. As an applicant for employment, it was
incumbent on Floyd to make it clear that she was willing-without any
condition attached-to offer her services to the Respondent. As she
-did not do so, but on the contrary created the impression that she was
engaged in a common action with Davis, the majority finds that she
did not make an unconditional offer to return to work. Accordingly,
as Floyd quit her job, and as she did not make an unconditional ap-
plication for reemployment, the majority finds that she was not dis-
criminatorily denied reemployment and shall therefore dismiss the
complaint as to her.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
6 Members Murdock and Peterson would adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding that Floyd
was discharged and refused reinstatement for discriminatory reasons. They strongly
disagree with the majority's conclusion that the Trial Examiner 's credibility resolutions
were contrary to the weight of the evidence or the inherent probabilities of the case.
There were only three pei sons present on the crucial evening of September 24-Randolph,
Floyd, and Davis On the basis of the demeanor of these witnesses the Trial Examiner
credited the two girls and discredited Randolph . Under well -established law, the ma-
jority was not justified in overruling this credibility resolution unless the clear pre-
ponderance of all the evidence was contrary to such resolution Standard Dry Wall Prod-
ucts, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F. 2d 362 (C A 3). Members Murdock and Peterson
believe that this condition does not prevail herein They find no weakness in the Trial
Examiner's failure to describe what aspect of Childress' and Request 's demeanor as wit-
nesses made them less credible than Davis and Floyd. The Board has recognized that
"credibility findings may lest entirely upon evidence through observation which words
do not. and could not, either preserve or describe" Roadway Express, Inc, 108 NLRB
874, 875 I-Iere, the Trial Examiner credited the denials by the two girls of the testimony
of Childress and Roquest because he found them to be honest and credible witnesses The
Trial Examiner, moreover, gave good reasons why he considered Potts' testimony concern-
ing the telephone conversation of September 24 to be mistaken It is not surprising that
Davis and Floyd, and Davis' husband , who were vitally affected by the events of Septem-
ber 24, had a better recollection of what happened than Potts who was on the outside of
these occurrences Members Murdock and Peterson believe that the fallacy of the ma-
jority's determination of the Floyd matter becomes evident when the events of Septem-
ber 24 are correlated with the Respondent's attitude on September 27 On the latter date,
the Respondent rejected Floyd's application for reinstatement after soliciting her return,
because she was accompanied by Union Agent Lato and permitted him to act as her
spokesman Potts' testimony as to Childress' remark that he was ready to take Floyd
back , but that he could not do so when she walked in with a union official, is a firm basis
for the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent was motivated by its hostile feel-
ings toward the Union in iejecting Floyd's application for reinstatement . If Childress
really had any doubts as to whether Floyd was willing to return irrespective of Davis'
reinstatement , he could have asked her point blank as to her position . He deliberately
failed to do this, so as to have another pretext for punishing a union adherent Accord-
ingly, Members Murdock and Peterson would find that Floyd was discharged on Septem-
ber 24 and refused reinstatement on September 27 In violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and
(1) of the Act.
379288-56-vol. 113-72
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Southeastern
Motor Truck Lines, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Warehouse and Distribution
Workers, Local 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or
otherwise discriminating against them in regard to hire and tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of employment or with change
of working conditions because of union membership or activities.
(c) Promising wage increases if the employees reject the Union.
(d) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in, or
their activities on behalf of, Warehouse and Distribution Workers,
Local 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, or any
other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, re-
straint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Warehouse and Distribution
Workers, Local 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or
protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activities except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to June Davis immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make whole June Davis in the manner set forth in the section
of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of
pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents upon
request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and
the rights of employment under the terms of this Order.
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1129
(d) Post at its St. Louis, Missouri, terminal, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discharged and there-
after refused to reinstate Grace Floyd in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) and (1) of the Act, or engaged in acts of interference, restraint, or
coercion other than those specifically found to be violative of the Act
in the Intermediate Report as modified in section 1 herein.
7 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order,"
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Warehouse and Dis-
_ tribution Workers, Local 688, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL, or in any other labor organization of
our employees, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against
them in regard to hire and tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment
or with change of working conditions because of union member-
ship or activities.
WE WILL NOT promise a wage increase if our employees reject
the Union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in, or their activities on behalf of, Warehouse and Dis-
tribution Workers, Local 688, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ers of America, AFL, or any other labor organization , in a man-
ner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1).
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Ware-
house and Distribution Workers, Local 688, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of'America, AFL, or any other labor organization,
to bargain, collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection,
and to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to June Davis immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or asubstantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed
and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of
the discrimination against her.
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material-
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , brought under Section 10 (b) of the Labor Management Rela-
tions Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136 (herein called the Act), was heard in St. Louis, Mis-
souri, on November 22 and 23, 1954, pursuant to notice to all the parties. The com-
plaint, issued on October 27, 1954, by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board 1 and based on charges duly filed and served , alleged that the Re-
spondent had engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) of the Act. The complaint alleged that Respondent discharged two employees,
June Davis and Grace Floyd, on September -24, 1954, and thereafter refused to rein-
state them because of their union and concerted activities . The complaint, as
amended at the hearing , alleged further that Respondent since August 1, 1954, has
interrogated its employees concerning their union activities , sympathies, affiliations,
and desires ; promised its employees wage increases and other benefits in order to
discourage membership in the Union ; threatened its employees with more difficult
working conditions if they joined the Union ; changed the hours of work or other
conditions of employment in order to discourage union membership and activity;
and engaged in surveillance of the employees ' union activities and meetings.
At the hearing Respondent was permitted to file his answer in the form of an oral
general denial . He was to have filed his written denial prior to the close of the hear-
1 The General Counsel and the staff attorney appearing for him at the hearing are re-
ferred to herein as the General Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as the
Board.
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1131
ing but did not do so. The General Counsel took no exception to the failure. As
the " issues between the parties were thoroughly litigated at the hearing, they are
treated on the merits herein.
All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence,
to argue orally, and to file briefs. Each side made an oral summation, but neither
filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Southeastern Motor Truck Lines, a Tennessee corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Nashville, Tennessee, at all times material herein has been
engaged as a common carrier in the business of transporting freight and general mer-
-chandise by motor vehicles in interstate commerce over the public highways. It has
trucking terminals in St. Louis, Missouri, with which we are principally concerned
herein, and also in Tennessee, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. During the
12-month period immediately preceding October 27, 1954, the date of the issuance
of the complaint herein, Respondent transported freight and general merchandise,
for which it received revenue in excess of 5 million dollars, of which more than 50
percent was derived from transporting freight and general merchandise in interstate
commerce. It is held that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and that under its present jurisdictional standards it will effectuate the
policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction herein. Breeding Transfer
Company, 110 NLRB 493.
During the first two quarters of 1954 over its entire system Respondent operated at
a substantial loss. About the first of June of that year, as a result of transfer of stock,
control of Respondent passed to new owners. During the third quarter the Company
operated in the black, but not enough so to overcome the deficit of the first 6 months.
In connection with the change of control, or pursuant thereto, two terminal man-
agers were replaced-in Atlanta, Georgia, and Memphis, Tennessee-and the terminal
manager at St. Louis, Missouri, V. A. Childress, felt, for a time at least, somewhat
insecure in his job. For some time before the change of control the prior owner
had been ill and had not adequately run his business. The new owners undertook,
with some success, to reduce the cost of operating and to make a profit. Whether
many of the events described below were motivated by this undertaking or, on the
contrary, were designed to defeat the efforts of the office employees of the St. Louis
terminal to organize, is a question which runs throughout the case.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Warehouse and Distribution Workers, Local 688, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
In substance Respondent contends that the complaint should be dismissed because
at the time of its issuance Angelo Lato, a staff representative with Local 688, had not
filed an affidavit under Section 9 (h) of the Act. Although Lato did not state in
so many words that he had not filed such an affidavit, it is a fair conclusion from his
entire testimony on the subject that he had not. The question arises, then, as to
whether a staff representative was an "officer" within the meaning of Section 9 (h).
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Lato, as a staff representative he
worked in the "organizing department of our union and I have a sole duty to do
and that is organizing." He stated further that "our officers in our union are known as
the executive board and I am not a member of that board." Further, Lato was ap-
pointed as staff representative by the secretary-treasurer of the local and approved by
the membership. He testified that the position of staff representative is a position
provided for in the bylaws of the Union. On this testimony, the only evidence in the
record on this subject, I hold that insofar as the record shows Lato was not an "officer"
within the meaning of Section 9 (h) and that his nonfiling did not bear upon the com-
pliance status of Local 688.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Efforts to organize and Respondent's knowledge thereof
Under the old management the office employees at the St . Louis terminal had cus-
tomarily received a general wage increase at about the same time as the other em-
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees at that terminal received an increase . In 1954 when the truckdrivers received
an increase on July 1 the office employees did not, and some of them felt, after
hearing members of management talk, that any increase would be long delayed in
coming. Four of the office employees ( Grace Floyd , June Davis, Dorothy Mos-
bacher, and Frances Potts ) thereupon decided they needed a union. The initial
contact between the Union and, the employees occurred about the middle of August.
On August 30 these four employees met with the Union's staff representative , Angelo
Lato, at a restaurant during their luncheon hour , discussed trying to organize all of
the Company 's office employees , and signed union authorization cards.
At a time not specifically revealed , but clearly during the early days the office
employees were considering joining a union , Terminal Manager V. A. Childress re-
ceived a telephone call from a man who refused to identify himself but who, ac-
cording to Childress , "seemed to know considerable about my office ." This voice
told Childress that there was a "great deal of dissatisfaction in my office, and the
girls, some of them didn 't know whether they was going to hold a job or not, and
that they were talking about joining a labor organization ." The voice said that
Dorothy Mosbacher was the leader. Upon conclusion of the call Childress telephoned
Respondent 's general office in Nashville , Tennessee , and made a report of what he
had learned to Respondent 's new vice president and president . He also told Charles
S. Randolph , his office manager at the St. Louis terminal , what he had learned during
the call . Randolph was in charge of the office and had authority , with the use of
independent judgment, to direct some 8 or 10 employees and recommend their hire
and discharge . He is clearly a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Randolph's testimony developed his admission that as of September 16, at least,
he knew that Davis, Floyd , Mosbacher , and Potts "were attempting to get other people
to sign cards," that "there was general knowledge that they were trying to organize,"
and that there were 4 in favor of the Union and 4 against it. The alleged source of
his information was the anonymous telephone call to Childress . However, Randolph
also admitted that he may have told Floyd that Marie Chor had told him quite a
little about the Union.
B. Interference , restraint, and coercion
1. Threats , interrogations , and promise of benefit
According to the testimony of June Davis, much of it uncontradicted , during the
morning of August 30 and shortly before the noon meeting of the office employees
with the Union's representative , Respondent 's office manager, Charles S. Randolph,
talking alone with Davis at Randolph 's desk, first asked her if she knew anything
about the Union . She replied in the negative? Then he told her that Childress had
received a telephone call that four little girls were going to join "the union and if
they did it would be on their lunch hour that day." Asked who the four girls were
he named Mosbacher , Floyd, Davis, and Potts. Asked for the name of the in-
formant , Randolph did not reveal it. June Davis then told him that she thought
it was just a rumor. Randolph replied that it wasn 't just a rumor, "that it had
gone farther than that this time, and he told me he thought we would get a raise
out of it, that he thought Nashville would give us a raise to keep us from joining
the union , and he thought Mr. Childress was calling Nashville, then ." Randolph
denied telling any employees that he thought he could get them a raise to keep
them out of the Union.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Davis, two additional office em-
ployees, Bob Wells and Marie Chor , had told Davis that they would attend that
first meeting with the Union 's representative , Angelo Lato , but they did not attend.
On the witness stand Randolph admitted that he talked with Wells and Chor about
the Union , but the record does not reveal just when that was. Davis testified that
on September 6, Randolph told her that Wells and Chor had told him everything
about the Union. Randolph denied this.
Shortly after the luncheon -hour meeting of August 30, at about 2 p . in., according
to the uncontradicted testimony of Davis, Randolph said to her that "he hoped
I had a good reason for that lie I told ." Davis asked him what he meant . Randolph
replied , "You will see what I mean."
On some day shortly before or after this August 30 meeting between the union
representative and the four employees, and probably shortly after his receipt of
the anonymous telephone call, V. A. Childress asked Dorothy Mosbacher, one of
the office employees , to come into his office. While she was there they transacted
no company business . Childress told her that he had heard rumors about a union
2 Davis testified that she did not disclose her union connection to Randolph because she
was afraid that if she did she would lose her job.
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1133
being started among the office employees and asked her why they would want a
union. She replied in substance that it was to get a raise to which they felt entitled.
Childress said something to the effect that he didn't see any reason why they should
want a union. Later the same day Randolph said to her, "I think you girls are
going about getting the Union in an awful sneaky way."
A few days after the August 30 meeting, on September 6, Randolph called June
Davis and Grace Floyd individually into Childress' office and talked with them con-
cerning a trailer whose departure had been delayed the evening before and about
the Union. To each of them Randolph took the position that they had deliberately
stalled around in getting a certain trailer out the evening before, with the result that
the driver got layover time. Layover time began after a driver had been in the St.
Louis terminal a certain number of hours. Each girl explained to Randolph, and
on all the evidence I find, that the delay had not been caused by them and that
Mr. Childress knew all about that trailer and why it had been delayed. The witness
Childress was not asked about this trailer.
Concerning the Union, Floyd testified that Randolph asked her what the "deal"
was, and when she asked what deal, he asked her if it wasn't true that four little
girls had signed cards earlier in the week. When Floyd told him she didn't know
what he was talking about, Randolph told her that she might as well tell him every-
thing because he already knew it anyway. He told her that as he understood it
she herself, as well as Mosbacher, Potts, and Davis, had signed the cards and
that the other four office employees were against the Union. Floyd told him that
it was just a rumor. Randolph replied that he had already lost 3 or 4 nights' sleep
over it, that he knew it wasn't a rumor, and that Bob Wells and Marie Chor
had told him all about it. When Floyd still held that she knew nothing about
the Union, Randolph said that "he wouldn't have any damn union in that office,
. that he was going to see to it there would be no union, that he was going to
make it rough on all of us. He said that the way he had it figured that Dorothy
and June were the instigators of the whole deal and he said he was going to get
rid of those two girls and he said if I ever told anybody that he told me that, that he'd
call me a liar and he'd deny ever saying anything like that to me." Then Randolph
told Floyd that "there was going to be a lot of changes around all of us and things
was going to be different and he was going to make it rough on all of us, he was
going to make us sorry we signed those cards. And he said then my hours would
be changed and June's hours would be changed, and I asked him when, he said
June's would start immediately but mine would start in about a week, he thought."
Concerning the Union, Randolph told Davis on this occasion, according to Davis,
that in the first place he didn't like a liar and that Davis was a liar. When she
asked him what he meant he replied, "You lied when you told me you didn't know
anything about the union." When Davis protested that she didn't know any-
thing about it Randolph asked Davis if she had called Bob Wells or Marie Chor on
the telephone to try to get them to join the Union. When Davis said that she had not,
Randolph replied, "Are you calling Bob Wells a liar," and added that he had never
caught him in a lie yet and that he believed what Wells told him. He added that
Wells and Marie Chor had told him everything about the Union. Randolph asked
Davis if she wanted to continue working for the Company, and added that if she
did, "you are going to straighten up and things are really going to be tight .. .
there won't be any talking or singing or whistling or any unnecessary noise, there
will just be strictly work from now on." Davis testified that prior to this conversation,
Randolph had never criticized her work.
On the witness stand, Randolph admitted that during this conference with Grace
Floyd he asked her if she thought "we needed a union." He stated that he "didn't
exactly ask her [Floyd] if she signed the card; I never asked her that but definitely
knew she was one of the four." Much of Davis' and Floyd's testimony concerning
these conferences Randolph did not deny.
On September 16, 1954, in Respondent's office at the St. Louis terminal, a conversa-
tion took place between Charles S. Randolph, office manager, and James R. Sneed, an
over-the-road driver who drove for Respondent between St. Louis and Nashville and a
member of the "teamsters union." No one else was present. Sneed, who impressed
me as a credible witness, testified that Randolph said that "the office tried to go union
and four was for the union and four against so they didn't get up a union contract";
that Randolph said he "thought Grace and June were the ringleaders in that and he
could make it hard on them." According to Sneed he replied, "Charlie, don't think I'd
try to fire these girls for taking union activity because I think they would take it by
law." Randolph replied that he knew what he was doing, that "he hadn't had
anything yet in that office he couldn't get rid of if he wanted to."
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In testifying Randolph admitted that "there was a conversation about the union.
There was general knowledge that they were trying to organize and he understood
that they were trying to organize and I did say that as far as I knew there was four
against it and four for it." Randolph stated that "if I said anybody was ringleaders,
I said Dorothy Mosbacher was because that is the way I understood it all along"-but
his best recollection was that he did not say that. He denied telling Sneed that "Grace
and June" were the ringleaders. Also he denied telling Sneed that he was "going to
get rid of them," "going to fire anybody because of union activities," or that he "could
find ways and means of getting rid of anybody if [he] wanted to." His version was
that,
We was talking about whether you need a union to hold a job and I told him
I didn't and he said he did and I told him, well, we got in quite a heated
argument. He said he thought I might need one and I said no, I had enough
sense to keep a job without one... .
Conclusions
By their demeanor on the witness stand June Davis, Grace Floyd, and James: R.
Sneed impressed me as credible witnesses, and more credible witnesses than Randolph.
Their above testimony is credited. Although a part of their above testimony was
denied by Randolph, I do not credit Randolph's denials. He was not a credible
witness. In addition to his demeanor he was at times evasive, unresponsive, and
confused. It is held that Randolph's August 30 statement to Davis that she would
see what he meant; and his September 6 statements to Floyd that he was going to
see to it that there would be no union among the office force, that he was going to
make it rough on all of them, that he was going to get rid of Davis and Mosbacher,
the instigators of the Union, that a lot of changes would be made around all of them,
that he would make them sorry they had signed those cards, were threats of reprisal
and were statements which interfered with, restrained, and coerced Randolph's
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent
thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Of like consequence and violation
were Randolph's warnings to Davis that if she wanted to continue working for
Randolph she would have to straighten up, that things were really going to be tight,
that thereafter there would be no talking or singing or whistling or any unnecessary
noise; and his warnings to Sneed that he could make it hard on Davis and Floyd, the
ringleaders in the Union, and his statement in substance that he could find a way of
getting rid of them if he wanted to.
As to Randolph's August 30 statement to June Davis that he thought the
employees would get a raise out of the situation, that he thought the Company would
give them a raise to keep them from joining the Union, and that he thought Childress
was calling the head office then, it is to be noted that this statement was made within
a few moments before Davis was going-Randolph knowing it-to an organizational
meeting during the luncheon hour. Randolph's statement was obviously calculated to
lead Davis to believe that if the office employees rejected the Union they would get
the raise to which they felt entitled. His statement amounted, in substance, to an
implied promise from the office manager that something was to be gained by the
office employees if they rejected the Union when they met in a few moments. As a
promise of benefit not protected by Section 8 (c),3 and as a statement reasonably
calculated to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, Randolph's words were a violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
The question arises as to whether Randolph's interrogations were violations of the
Act-his September 6 inquiries of Davis and Floyd concerning the state of the
employees' organization and what they knew about it. To be noted in this con-
sideration is that the inquiries were largely rhetorical, in that they were followed
almost immediately by remarks to the effect that Randolph knew all about the
subject anyhow. In the same conversation when he interrogated Floyd, and only a
moment later, he violated the Act by making the threats related above. The threats
to Davis, as related above, were made a few hours after the interrogation on the
same day, but the promise of benefit was made in the same conversation as the inter-
rogation. On the record considered as a whole, viewed in the context in which
the interrogations occurred, and considering not only the surrounding circumstances
but also the nature of the interrogations themselves, I hold that Randolph's interro-
gations of Davis and Floyd were asked not for the purpose of adducing information
from the employees, but were reasonably calculated to and reasonably tended to
3 Cf J. S Abercrombie Company, 83 NLRB 524, 525-6, 530-31, enfd. 180 F. 2d 578
(C. A. 5).
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1135
interfere .with , restrain , and coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7, Respondent
thereby violating Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.4
The question arises as to whether Childress ' interrogation of Mosbacher was a
violation of the Act. In the light of the record considered as a whole, and in view of
the other unfair labor practices found herein to have occurred during a period of
about 4 weeks , I find that Childress ' interrogation of Mosbacher was for the purpose
in part of confirming in his own mind the information he had earlier received in the
anonymous telephone call. In view of the other unfair labor practices found herein to
have been concurrently performed by Randolph upon the office employees , however,
the threats , the interrogations , and the promise of benefit , I hold that Childress' in-
terrogation of Mosbacher was also reasonably calculated to, and under all the cir-
cumstances reasonably tended to interfere with , restrain , and coerce employees in the
exercise of Section 7, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. Change of working conditions
Change of attitude by management : Asked on cross-examination by Respondent's
counsel if Childress and Randolph treated her differently in any way after they had
learned that she was active in the Union , Dorothy Mosbacher , a credible witness,
replied, "Well , yes. I think that after they found out we were interested in the Union
the officials talked to us more shortly and abruptly than they did before ." On re-
direct examination she testified that after the advent of the Union Randolph "seemed
to be cold and more abrupt than he was before." One day as she returned from a
short "break" singing, Randolph told her he wanted the singing stopped. Frances
Potts confirmed that "after" the Union Randolph did not want them to sing or hum in
the office , whereas before that nothing had been said when they did. Mosbacher
stated that Childress ' attitude also changed shortly after he learned about the organ-
izational efforts. None of this testimony was denied . Although this change of at-
titude by management was provocation for a change of attitude by employees, I do
not find it a sufficient change in working conditions to warrant a finding of an 8 (a)
(1) violation.
Change of hours: The two bill clerks at the St . Louis terminal , Floyd and Davis,
worked their regular 8-hour day from 9 until 6 o'clock, with an hour out for lunch.
The nature of their work required that they normally remain several more hours
before finishing, for which time they were paid at an overtime rate.
In April or May 1954, at lunch with Floyd and Davis , Office Manager Randolph told
them that their work hours were going to have to be changed to 10 until 7, with the
result that they would not receive so much overtime pay. All three understood that
this change would not effect the number of hours they actually worked , but only the
amount of pay they would receive, since overtime began after a regular 40-hour week.
Both of the employees expressed their firm disapproval of this change and said that
they would quit rather than work the new hours . Randolph said that he didn't blame
them , that he would quit too rather than work those hours. During this discussion
Floyd told Randolph that she would not work different hours from her husband's
working hours-those presumably being 9 to 6 . The witness Randolph admitted that
the two girls told him they did not like to work overtime and that they would quit if
their hours were changed . The hours were not then changed.
During about the first week in August 1954 , Randolph had lunch .with Floyd,
Davis, Mosbacher , and Potts . Asked by the employees if they were going to get a
raise Randolph replied , "No," that the Company was working out a raise for the
officials, including himself and Childress . Floyd and Davis then asked if it was pos-
sible for them to have help in the evenings so they could get finished more quickly-
to which Randolph replied that they were doing the work so much better and faster
than they used to that they did not need any help, that the office was in the best shape
it had ever been in . It was Randolph 's remarks on the subject of raises which con-
vin'ed the employees that they needed a union.
Without further discussion with Floyd and Davis , on September 7, 1954, the regular
hours of Davis were changed-not to 10 until 7, but to 11 until 8 . Davis was ap-
prised of the change by Randolph the day before, when he told her to report- the
next and following days at 11 o'clock in the morning. As has been found above,
the same day before, September 6, is the day that Randolph violated the Act by
uttering threats and interrogations to these two employees and a promise of benefit.
As has been found above, Randolph told Floyd about the coming change in Davis'
and Floyd 's hours ( the latter 's hours were changed on September 16 to 11 until 8)
' Cf Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB 591; A. L. Gilbert Company, 110 NLRB 2067;
Graber Manufacturing Company, Inc ., 111 NLRB 167
1136 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the same conversation that he was telling her that changes were goingto" be
made, that he was going to make it rough on the girls, and that he was going to
make them sorry they had signed the union cards.
Respondent's position was that the hours were changed in order to reduce the
cost of overtime. The evidence established that the bill clerks were busiest during the
afternoon and evening hours, and that the change in their regular hours to 11 until
8 did not appreciably change the hour they actually finished their work at night and
went home. In connection with the change of hours, Respondent broke in another
employee on their work, so that she could assist in it prior to 11 o'clock in the morn-
ing. So from the Company's point of view the change in hours reduced the cost of
overtime, thereby reducing the cost of running the office.
In support of its position Respondent 's terminal manager and office manager con-
tended, in substance, that ever since Childress' first trip to Nashville to see the new
owners-which Childress placed in July-the new owners had been insisting that they
reduce the cost of operating the St. Louis terminal by reducing the amount of over-
time pay. Childress testified that from then until the changes were made-July to
September 7-"I was talking to Randolph all during the time trying to get him to cut
it [the overtime] down." According to Childress, when he first discussed the over-
time problem with Randolph, the latter expressed the thought that he "could pos-
sibly cut out . . . a great deal of it." Childress testified further that almost daily
he had conferences with Randolph with reference to reducing the cost or improving
the efficiency in the office, and that Childress himself concentrated more on reducing
the cost of the dock and the drivers. Yet despite all this Randolph-as he admitted
on recross-examination-never told Floyd and Davis that he wanted them to stop
working overtime. And Respondent offered no convincing reason why it should have
taken so long to start eliminating or reducing overtime when the local managers
were under such pressure from the new owners, who had taken over more than 3
months before, and when Randolph was under such pressure from Childress, to get
about it. ^'
On the entire record considered as a whole I hold that the changing of the hours
on September 7 and 16, coming as it did just a week and 2 weeks after the August
30 meeting-known to Randolph-between the employees and the union representa-
tive, although justified to reduce the cost of overtime, was timed and was announced
by Randolph in such a manner as to impress the employees that the change was made
for the purpose of discouraging their further participation in the Union. By making
the change in hours when it did, and by announcing the change during the same
conversation in which it was unlawfully threatening and interrogating the employees
concerning the Union, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.5
Change of method of doing the work: Effective September 10, 1954, Randolph
made a change in what Davis and Floyd characterized as "the system," which, ac-
cording to the employees, slowed up their work and their production. Prior to the
change these two bill clerks typed the freight bills from the bills of lading in the order
that the bills of lading came in, and after all the freight bills were prepared they
would separate them by trailers and prepare the manifest for each trailer. After
the change, using all available bills of lading they would type the freight bills for
the next trailer to go out, manifest it, and so on. The employees testified that they
were slowed up by having to go through the bills of lading-sometimes as many as
200-each time they were about to start typing the freight bills for a new trailer;
and that they were slowed up further when, midway on one trailer, they would be
interrupted and told to prepare the freight bills for another trailer first before finish-
ing that one. Although Davis admitted and the record confirms that this change was
made to eliminate or reduce driver layover time, Respondent offered no explanation
as to why the change was made when it was-concurrently with the other changes of
working conditions and unfair labor practices found herein. Why, for instance, was
it not made during August, July, or June? It is held that this change in working con-
ditions, although economically justifiable, under all the circumstances, was timed
to discourage further participation in the Union by Davis and Floyd, and that by
making the change when it did, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.6
Checking of bill clerks' volume of work: Prior to September 10, 1954, Randolph
had never kept track of the number of freight bills the outbound clerks had processed
5 Cf Hudson Hosiery Company, 72 NLRB 1434, 1436-7; Pyne Moulding Corporation,
110 NLRB 1700
Cf Hudson Hosiery Company, supra; Pyne Moulding Corporation, 110 NLRB 1700.
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES, 1137
in a given day. During the 2 years Floyd, and the 1 yearDavis, had worked on the
job, they had handled the work as it came in, taking care of the volume to the ap-
parent satisfaction of management . The number of bills to be processed and the
amount of any other work to be performed by them varied according to various
factors in the business-the number of shipments that came in that day to be
processed , the number of bills that for some reason or other did not get processed yes-
terday and so therefore were first on the list to be done today , how much help , if any,
the bill clerks were given in their work by the rate clerk, by Randolph , and by any
other employees especially assigned by Randolph to assist them . The speed of their
output was also determined somewhat by the type of machine , electric or manual,
either bill clerk was using, the extent to which they encountered any trouble on a
particular day, and how long the bills were.
September 10, 1954 , Davis and Floyd worked later than they had ever worked
before, with the possible exception of 1 day the previous July. September 10 was a
Friday night , always the busiest night in the workweek . That night , or rather the
next morning , they checked out at 12:06 a. m., Floyd having been working since 9
o'clock and Davis since 11 o'clock in the morning. According to the credited testi-
mony of Davis and Floyd they had started that day with some 200 bills left over
from the day before , they had had no help with the splitting , the separating, or the
manifesting , and they had been handicapped by working under the new "system,"
which was put into effect that day. Nothing in their testimony or in their attitude
towards their work or management as it shows through their testimony, suggests that
they loitered that night, or stayed longer than they needed to in order to get the work
finished.
Beginning sometime the following week Randolph began making a day -to-day
check of the number of bills handled each day by each outbound bill clerk-there
being only two, Davis and Floyd. First he testified that he started making the check
the following Monday . Later in his testimony he said that he started making the
check on Wednesday and went backwards to pick up Monday and Tuesday. In any
case, once he started he continued making the check each day for some 2 weeks,
until the two employees were severed . On redirect examination , pursuant to a lead-
ing question , he testified in substance that he began making the check in order to
test their volume output after Davis ' hours were changed . On recross he stated that
he did not start checking as a result of the change in "system," that he did it because
the girls were late that one night , September 10. In any case, his check seems to have
concentrated upon volume alone, and to have ignored the numerous factors, men-
tioned above , which contributed so largely to the output.
To be recalled at this point are Randolph 's threats of reprisal made August 30
and September 6, as found above, and his statements to Sneed made September 16-
during the very week that he began making the check-to the effect that he could
make it hard on Davis and Floyd , the ringleaders in the Union , and that he could
find a way of getting rid of them if he wanted to. The fact that he was even then
engaged in making a volume check of their work-and of theirs alone , insofar as
the record shows-and that he had just begun to do so, strongly suggests that even
then he was engaged in setting the stage for carrying out his threats to get rid of
them . It does not appear , however , that he made any independent threats in con-
nection with the check , or that he used the fact that he was making the check in any
way to interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. Thus, when Floyd asked him why he was making the check, ac-
cording to Randolph , he replied that he "didn 't think they were doing a good job."
On the entire record I hold that Randolph's decision to make the check and his making
it was not a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, whatever impact it may have
had upon a possible violation of Section 8 (a) (3).
Promising a wage increase to defeat the Union : Upon his return from his first trip
to Nashville after the new owners took over , which all witnesses placed in July
(Randolph said late July), Childress stated a number of things to the office em-
ployees about the new order of things , and made some reference to a wage increase
for the office employees . Although the testimony was confusing as to just when he
said what , I conclude , on the basis of all the testimony on the subject of wages, that
at this point he was encouraging to the employees and told them in effect that if they
.would work hard and if the St . Louis terminal could show a profit , he thought they
would get a raise. Childress was aware at this time that the employees wanted and
felt entitled to a raise , but there is no proof that at this time he knew they were
,thinking of joining a union, if indeed they were . As has been stated above, the first
contact with the Union was about the middle of August , whereas Childress first spoke
to the employees about a raise after his return from Nashville sometime in July.
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At some point Childress told the employees that when the St. Louis terminal
achieved an operating ratio of 92 percent they would get their raise-Childress plac-
ing this at the return from his first trip, Frances Potts placing it at a point after
Childress knew about the union movement. Davis throught that Childress first talked
about the operating ratio on August 30, the day the employees signed the union
cards.
Grace Floyd testified that early in September Childress said that if the St. Louis
terminal showed a profit that month that maybe the girls would get a raise. That
terminal had an operating ratio of "a little over" 92 percent for August, which infor-
mation Childress received in September, presumably early in September. For
September its operating ratio was 89 percent, better than 92 percent, which informa-
tion Childress presumably received early in October. At least some, and presumably
all, of the office employees remaining on the payroll got a raise in October.
It thus appears from the evidence that Childress was first encouraging to the
employees about a possible raise before Childress knew about any union movement
among them and probably before there was any such movement. The fact that in
addition he was encouraging to them after he learned of the union movement may
not on the evidence before me, and absent any direct evidence of a promise by
Childress of a raise to defeat the Union, be taken as conclusive that Childress was
motivated by antiunion bias in referring to a possible raise to come and in, finally
granting it. I hold that the preponderance of evidence does not warrant a finding
that Respondent violated the Act by anything that Childress said or did-concerning
a wage increase.
C. Severance of June Davis and Grace Floyd
The General Counsel contends that on September 24, 1954, Respondent dis-
charged both June Davis and Grace Floyd. Respondent admits that it discharged
Davis on that date, but contends that Floyd quit.
At the time of her discharge June Davis had been working for Respondent for
1 year and 2 months. By September 24, 1954, Grace Floyd had been working for
Respondent for a little over 2 years. The testimony shows that in performing their
duties as bill clerks they worked together. The freight bills had to be typed and
checked against the bills of lading, the eight copies of each had to be " split" and
properly disposed of, at some point the freight bills that went with each or a given
trailer had to be gathered together, and from them a manifest for that trailer load
prepared. In addition, from time to time they had to consult other employees, such
as the rate clerk, the dock foreman, and possibly one or more drivers, and also had
some work in connection with the files. In their work they used both electric and
manual machines, such as typewriters, and the speed of their work was somewhat
influenced by which type of machine they were using. Although the two employees
worked together, it was not necessarily a team operation. Floyd, who was faster,
principally "billed," and Davis assisted Floyd by checking her bills, splitting them,
separating them according to trailer, and manifesting them. Davis also did some
billing. Within the limits of their prescribed work their duties varied from day to
day, according to the instructions given them by Randolph.
Dorothy Mosbacher and Frances Potts, who worked near Davis and Floyd,
credibly testified that they never saw Davis or Floyd playing around or loafing on
the job, and that they worked conscientiously and diligently. Mosbacher added
that she never heard of Davis being insubordinate to Randolph in any way.
In substance June Davis testified that the first time her work or Floyd's was
criticized by Randolph was in the same September 6 conversation when, as found
above, Randolph threatened that thereafter things were really going to be tight.
(On the same day, as found above, Randolph told Floyd that he was going to get rid
of the union instigators, including Davis.) With the assistance of leading questions
on direct examination Randolph testified that Davis was a reasonably satisfactory
employee until 2 or 3 weeks before her discharge, but that after her hours were
changed she was uncooperative in getting the work out.. Contradicting himself,
.Randolph later testified, still on direct examination, but without the aid of leading
questions, that in his talk with Davis in Childress' office-which occurred September
6, the day before Davis' hours were changed-Randolph "asked her if she couldn't
change her attitude toward her work and if she couldn't do a better job." Contra-
dicting Randolph, Childress testified on direct examination that "it was common
knowledge that June wasn't doing a very good job for some time . I'd say for two
or three months or maybe even prior to that time." Modifying his own testimony,
on cross-examination Childress said, "I believe I couldn't very well testify that
Mrs. June Davis wasn't doing her work properly. I will say this, I know Mrs. Davis
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1139
had a lot of distractions during the time she was supposed to be working , such as
running back and forth on the dock , making personal telephone calls, receiving
calls in the office, and those sort of things . This went on constantly ." Childress
added that although this had been going on for 2 or 3 months , he didn 't speak to
Davis himself about these shortcomings because he left it to Randolph , and they
didn 't discharge her during that period of time-although "I possibly should have"-
because, "You know we usually try to give a person every chance on earth to correct
their work." . Randolph , her direct supervisor , testified that during her employment
he spoke to Davis about once a month about her work , that she "was coming along
fine," and that he encouraged her. He testified she was doing "well" in July 1954
and was doing well during the first week in August . Although during August on
several occasions she came to work late and they had some words about that (at
least 1 day Davis was ill), Randolph stated that during August "she didn't do too
much" of which he disapproved . During their words about her tardiness Davis
asked if Randolph wanted her to quit and he replied in the negative . Nothing in
Randolph 's testimony or in his alleged conversations with Davis about her work,
her attitude , or her shortcomings , suggests that she indulged in personal telephone
calls or went to and from the dock for personal reasons or suffered undue distrac-
tions, as testified by Childress . Nothing in Randolph 's testimony suggested-contrary
to Childress'-that prior to September there was any serious shortcoming in either
Davis' attitude or her performance , or that there was any cause to consider dis-
charging her. In fact Randolph testified that neither Davis nor Floyd had been
uncooperative before September . In fact , in August Randolph told Davis he didn't
want her to quit . It is difficult to credit a defense so fraught with self-contradictions.
Further, it is undenied that at lunch one day in early August as Randolph and Davis,
Floyd , Mosbacher , and Potts were discussing getting a raise and more help for
evening work , Randolph told Davis and Floyd in substance that they had improved
so, and were doing the work so well, that they didn 't need any help ; and that the
office was in better shape than it had ever been.
Sometime after 8 p. m. on September 24, 1954, Randolph discharged June Davis
and the severance of Grace Floyd occurred simultaneously . He gave them both
their checks and they checked out at 8 : 43 p. m.
Shortly before their severance Randolph had initiated a conversation with Floyd
while she was "looking up a bill in the files." According to Floyd, the former
opened the conversation with the expression that Floyd was "going to have to put out
more work next week or else ." She asked him what he meant by "else ." He re-
plied that Floyd had not done as much work that day as she had been doing.
According to Floyd , "I told him I didn 't know how much work I did that day, but
I hadn ' t wasted any time ." Randofph then repeated his statement that she would
have to put out more work the next week or else.
Then Randolph spoke to Davis , accusing both Davis and Floyd of fooling around
that day and killing time, and stating that Davis' production that day was "a lot
lower . . . than it had ever been and it had been low that week ." Accord ng to
Davis, the two girls then complained in substance that their work was slowed up by
the change in "the system ." Also Davis observed to Randolph in substance that
he had told her to catch up on the manifesting and check and split Floyd 's bills
before doing further billing . Randolph testified that Davis ' first words to him on
that occasion , after he had made his accusations to her , were, "I don 't give a damn what
you think ." Both Davis and Floyd denied that Davis made any such utterance.
As they were more credible witnesses than Randolph , their denials are credited.
Then Randolph went into Childress ' office and telephoned Childress , who was at
his home. According to the testimony of both Childress and Randolph, the latter
asked the former for permission to discharge Davis, but not for permission to dis-
charge Floyd. On the witness stand Randolph was not asked to relate this conver-
sation. According to the testimony of Childress, Randolph "told me that it looked
like he still wasn 't going to be able to cut it [the overtime] out, that both these girls,
it seemed to him , were sort of dragging down there , and . . . he said he had talked to
June, and June made the statement she didn 't give a damn what he thought about her
work, that she wasn't going to improve it. My reply was, `Charlie , we have gone as
far as we can possibly go. An employee with that sort of attitude must be discharged
and you do it now.' "
Then Randolph returned to the two girls and , as related by Floyd,
he said either you girls has got to do good or I got to go and I told Mr. Randolph
he was the boss and it was entirely up to him on who goes, so he asked me
then if I promised to do more work next week and I told him I couldn't
possibly make a promise like that because I was already doing my best, so he
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
turned to Mrs. Davis and asked her if she would promise him that she would
do more work next week and she told him she was doing her best, so he said,
"Go in and get your time cards and I will make up your checks."
As Randolph was making out the checks, Floyd told Randolph that he had no right
to fire them, that she knew "it was all over this union activity." Randolph did not
deny this assertion. Floyd added that the least he could do for them was to give
them a good reference. To that Randolph replied, according to Floyd, that "we
could both say we quit if we wanted to, that he wouldn't say that either one of us hadn't
done a good job while we was there." Randolph did not deny this. Thereupon the
girls accepted the checks and left.
After getting home that night, Grace Floyd telephoned Randolph and requested
that the reference he had promised her be in the form of a written letter of recom-
mendation. He said that_he would give both Floyd and Davis a letter. A few
moments later Randolph called back and told Floyd that he couldn't give her the
letter that night because he was too busy, but, according to Floyd, they left it that
when he had it prepared he would call her. He never did. Randolph's uncredited
version was that Floyd said she would come down to the office for it, but she never
came. In this telephone conversation, according to Floyd he told her he couldn't
give June Davis such a letter of recommendation, "for the protection of the
company."
During the above telephone conversation Raymond Davis, husband of June Davis,
took the phone with Floyd's permission and talked with Randolph. According to
the uncontradicted, credible, and credited testimony of Raymond Davis,
I asked him what the deal was, what it was all about and why he wouldn't give
my wife and Mrs. Floyd a written recommendation and he said that he had
to protect the company and I said, "Well, Charlie, was it her work or what is
the deal on this thing," and he said, "No," it wasn't their work, they done good
work up until that day and I said, "Well, surely your sure as hell can't fire them
for one day like that," and he said, "Well," he said, "there is other things in-
volved that I don't have time to explain to you." Said they had been building
up for quite some time, I think he said for several weeks and he said, "But you
can tell them that they can say that they quit."
Randolph testified that he discharged Davis "because she hadn't been doing a
good job on that particular day and that complete week. I saw what she could
do on the 17th and knew what she could do before and she wasn't doing it." As
to Floyd, he testified in substance that she quit over his firing Davis, attributing to
her the words,
"If she goes, I am going too, but I want you to understand that you are not
firing me, I am quitting and I want a good recommendation." That was her
exact words.
At one point in his testimony Randolph stated that Floyd's production slowed down
somewhat on the Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday prior to her severance on
Friday, the 24th, and on the 24th "her work definitely dropped." Thus Respondent's
apparent position is that the work of both Davis and Floyd dropped during their
last week, as a result of which Davis was discharged but Floyd was not. Apparent-
ly Randolph did not communicate the alleged fact that Floyd slowed down the last
week to Childress, because the latter testified, "Grace, so far as I knew, had always
done a fair job. .
In substance Childress testified that the following day, September 25, when Floyd
telephoned him she admitted that Davis had been discharged and that she, Floyd,
had quit. Floyd denied this. Respondent also offered the testimony of the dock
foreman who testified that as Davis clocked out on September 24 she told him that
she had been fired and that Grace Floyd had quit. Davis denied mentioning Floyd
to the dock foreman on that occasion. Because Floyd and Davis impressed me as
honest and credible witnesses, I credit their denials. One of the General Counsel's
witnesses, Frances Potts, testified on cross-examination that when Grace Floyd
telephoned her September 24 after the severance, the latter told her that Davis had
been discharged and Floyd had quit. Floyd and also June Davis and her hus-
band, Raymond Davis, who overheard Floyd's end of this telephone conversation
with Potts, all testified in substance that Floyd told Potts not that Floyd had quit,
but that in discharging her Randolph had told Floyd that she could tell people that
she had quit. Although Potts was a credible witness, on the entire record I believe
Potts was mistaken in her remembrance of this conversation. In the light of the
entire record I credit Floyd's version of it.
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1141
Respondent's defense concentrated on the number of bills handled by Floyd.and
Davis during their last three Fridays, as representative of their work, Fridays be-
ing the busiest workday. The defense established the number of freight bills handled
by them on those days, but it did not establish all of the surrounding circumstances
and any difficulties attendant upon getting them out. Nor did it assert in each case
the number of bills left over from the day before and handled by them before
working on those filed for the day being counted.
On September 10, these 2 employees processed 490 bills in 23 manhours. On
September 17, with the help of 3 other people, including Randolph, for at least part
of the day, they processed 613 bills in 18 manhours, more than they had ever be-
fore handled in 1 day. On this day, according to their credited testimony, Davis
and Floyd did almost nothing but "bill," their other duties being performed by
others. In essence that meant that they spent the day at their typewriters typing
freight bills without interruption. On September 24, their folders indicated that
they processed 453 bills in soihe 16 or 17 hours. Floyd testified on cross-examina-
tion that they encountered a lot of trouble that day, but that when they left that night
at 8.43 o'clock, all bills had been prepared except some 9 or 10, and some of them,
had been manifested. She testified that although a number of trailers had not
been closed out on the so-called closeout list, that was because work on them was
not completely finished, although they had been manifested. Although Randolph's
version of the events of September 24 differed somewhat from Floyd's, the latter's
version is credited. By their demeanor generally, and particularly when testify-
ing concerning their duties, the instructions and threats they received from Randolph
from time to time, and in answering the many questions from both counsel con-
cerning the volume of work handled by them on the last three Fridays, Grace Floyd
and June Davis impressed me that they were telling the truth as well as they could
remember it.
By its testimony Respondent contended that because Floyd and Davis were 3
minutes late in processing the bills for trailer 200 on September 24, its driver re-
ceived 3 hours' overtime. Their testimony established that they got this trailer
out as fast as they could after they were given instructions to do so. When they
were finished they added up the weight and found it short. So they had to make
a search' for any missing bill or bills and had to talk to a number of people, includ-
ing the dock foreman and Randolph, while doing so. Finally a Coca-Cola bill which
went with that trailer was found on the rate clerk's desk, there being no mark on
it to indicate that it related to trailer 200. Floyd took it to the rate clerk, who had
to rate it and "mark it up." Also the Coca-Cola bill required some stopovers and
the girls had to cut an extra bill for each stopover. The difficulties connected with
this Coca-Cola bill must have taken considerably more than 3 minutes. It was not
claimed that the two girls were at fault that the Coca-Cola bill was not given them
to process with the other bills for trailer 200. Whose fault it was was not established.
But apparently Randolph blamed only the two girls. This was consistent with an
intention to find something wrong with their work as a pretext to get rid of them.
Conclusions
As has been found above, on August 30 Randolph threatened June Davis for
denying earlier that day that she knew anything about the union movement. On
September 6, some 18 days before the severances, Randolph told both Floyd and
Davis that two employees, Chor and Wells, had told him all about the Union; and
Randolph told Floyd that he had already lost 3 or 4 nights' sleep over the Union,
that he wouldn't have any "damn union" in that office, that he was going to see
to it that there would be no union, that he was going to make it rough on all of them,
that he thought Davis and Mosbacher were the instigators of the Union and he was
going to get rid of them and that if Floyd repeated any of this he would deny it and
call Floyd a liar. He added that there were going to be a lot of changes around all
of them, that things were going to be different, that he was going to make it rough
on all of them, that he was going to make them sorry they had signed those ( union)
cards, and that Floyd's and Davis' hours would be changed, Davis' starting im-
mediately, and Floyd's in about a week.
The same day, September 6, Randolph accused June Davis of lying to him when
she told him she didn't know anything about the Union, and added that if Davis
wanted to continue working for the Company she would have to straighten up,
that things were really going to be tight, that henceforth there would be no talking
or singing or whistling or any unnecessary noise, and that there would be just strict-
ly work from then on.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As has been found above, on September 16, just 8 days before the severances,
Randolph told James R. Sneed that he thought Floyd and Davis were the ring-
leaders in the Union and that he could make it hard on them. Thus by then Ran-
dolph had evidently decided to his own satisfaction that although Mosbacher and
Davis had been the instigators of the Union, Floyd and Davis had become the ring-
leaders of it. Randolph added to Sneed in substance that he could find a way
of getting rid of Floyd and Davis if he wanted to. And the entire record in the
case indicates that he wanted to.
The entire record considered as a whole compels the conclusion that during the
last several weeks of their employment, Randolph was seeking a pretext to carry
out his threats to get rid of Floyd and Davis. In several respects he-assisted in
some respects by Childress-altered their working conditions in such a way as to
provoke them. Into a previously relaxed office atmosphere he instituted a strict
nothing-but-work rule, and announced it in the context of strong antiunion re-
marks and antiunion threats. In the same context he Abruptly announced the chang-
ing of the work hours of Floyd and Davis not to 10-7, which to his knowledge
.they had previously frowned upon, but-with no explanation whatsoever, either to
them or on the record herein-to 11-8 o'clock. He started keeping a daily check
of the volume of their output for the first time in their employment history. Any
one of these changes, against the background of threats, could have caused them to
erupt and afforded him a pretext, but they held their tongues. If their work or
their attitude suffered somewhat under this oppression , it is little wonder, but if it
did, that was not the cause of the discharge, but merely the pretext for it. Finally,
on September 24, Randolph thought he had them. He blamed the late-leaving trailer
200 solely on them, although they were not proven to have been responsible for the
initial fault which cost the vital 3 minutes. He thought he had found a pretext in
their low output that day, a conclusion by Randolph which the complete record in
this case does not verify. All of their production records for the previous 2 weeks
were not put in evidence, although Randolph said that he had them. Enough of
their working conditions and problems, relating to the Union and otherwise, were
shown in this record to establish, however, that the output statistics of their last
three Fridays alone was not a fair measure of either the work they were capable
of performing or the work they did perform. The statistics did not relate the length
of the bills, but only the number of them, nor the numerous difficulties the employees
had to overcome in getting them out, some of which were shown in the record. In
any case the September 17 statistics were not a fair measuring stick because on that
day the 2 employees were greatly assisted by 3 others, as shown above.
To be noted in the consideration of the events of September 24 is the fact that
Randolph admitted in substance to Raymond Davis over the telephone that the
discharge of Floyd and Davis was not because of their work, but that other things
were involved, and that the situation had been building up for several weeks.
On the record considered as a whole, I find that on September 24, 1954 , Randolph
discharged both Grace Floyd and June Davis, that in doing so he was carrying
out the threats he uttered August 30, September 6, and September 16, and that'he
discharged them for the purpose of discouraging membership in the -Union, Re-
spondent thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
D. Refusal to reinstate Grace Floyd
Saturday morning, September 25, 1954, Floyd telephoned Childress and asked
him for a letter of recommendation. Acknowledging that he knew from Randolph
what had happened the night before, Childress said that Floyd deserved 'such a
letter and that he would give her one. As they talked over when he w^ ild.write-it
and she pick it up, Childress told her in substance that if she was ritere, • ted in going
back to work she should come in Monday morning and they would talk it over
and he would put her back to work.
On Monday morning, September 27, 1954, Floyd called on Childress in his office-
accompanied by June Davis and Angelo Lato, the Union's staff representative.
Some 2 days later Childress told Frances Potts, according to her uncontradicted and
credited testimony, that
he was ready to take Gracie [Floyd] back but when she walked in with the
union official he couldn't do it and he said he was so surprised to see her that
he was really floored . He was so surprised when she walked in with the union
official. why he said he would have been less surprised if his grandmother had
walked in and she had been dead for twelve years.
At this Monday conference, according to the credited testimony of Grace Floyd,
corroborated by June Davis, Lato asked Childress why the girls had been discharged
SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR TRUCK LINES 1143
and whether Childress would'put them back to work., In substance Childress re-
plied that he had planned to put Floyd back but could not since Lato had come,
in with -her, that now he could. not until he telephoned the head office in Nash-
ville. but that he would call Nashville about putting Floyd back and let them know
in a few days. He never called them back.
Respondent's position was in substance that Lato did not ask, but demanded, that
both girls be reinstated, and that Floyd has never requested reinstatement independ-
ently of a concurrent request for the reinstatement of Davis. Respondent's further;
position was that Childress had intended that morning to get Floyd and Randolph;
together and to try to get Floyd to apologize to Randolph for quitting the previous
Friday night before all the work had been finished; that when Floyd came in Mon-
day accompanied by others, it deprived Childress of the opportunity of getting
Randolph and Floyd together. But this is no adequate defense to the charge that on
this occasion Childress discriminatorily refused to reinstate Floyd. In the first,
place, as found above, Randolph had discharged Floyd, and so was due no apology
from her. In the second place, even accepting his version of the severance (which
I do not), still the defense is not convincing. For instance Childress could have, but
did not, tell his visitors that he wanted to talk alone with Floyd and Randolph-
or he could have asked that Floyd come in alone later that day or the following
day for the purpose of talking with him and Randolph. Instead he told them
he could not take the girls back to work since Lato had come in with them, but
that he would telephone Nashville about it and let them know-which he never
did.
Upon consideration of all the evidence on this issue, and in the light of the
entire record in the case considered as a whole, I hold with the preponderance of
the evidence that although it had earlier intended to, Respondent refused to reinstate
Floyd on and after September 27, 1954, because she was accompanied to the con-
ference and was represented at the conference by a representative of the Union,
Respondent's purpose being to discourage membership and activity in the Union
and representation by the Union, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3)
and (1) of the Act.
Respondent did not contest, but admitted, that on September 27 it refused to
reinstate June Davis. It is held that Respondent refused on the 27th and thereafter
to reinstate Davis because of her membership and activity in the Union, because
she was accompanied to the conference and was represented at the conference by
a-'representative of the Union, and for the purpose of discouraging membership and
activity in the Union and representation by the Union, Respondent thereby violating
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Respondent 's activities set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with
Respondent 's operations described in section 1, above, have a close , intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth
above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having discharged June Davis and Grace Floyd because of their
union and concerted activities, I recommend that Respondent offer to each of them
immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent posi-
tion 7 without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges and make
each of them whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of Re-
spondent's discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal
to that which she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her dis-
charge, September 24, 1954, the date of the discrimination against her, to the date
when, pursuant to the recommendations herein contained, Respondent shall offer
her reinstatement, less her net earnings during said periods Loss of pay shall be
determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which each would normally have
7The Chase National Rank of the City of New York, San Juan, Pee, to Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827
9 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8 , Republic Steel Corporation v
N L R B, 311 U S 7
379288-56- ^ of 113-73
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
earned for each quarter or portion thereof, her net earnings , if any, in other employ-
ment during that period . Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect
upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter. The quarterly periods described
herein shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October.9 It is
recommended further that Respondent make available to the Board upon request
payroll and other records, in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of
back pay due.io
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and
tendency, I find the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to other
unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future
is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past."
The preventative purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coextensive
with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to mini-
mize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuates
the,policies of the Act, I will recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in
any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Southeastern Motor Truck Lines is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Warehouse and Distribution Workers, Local 688, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. In August and September 1954, by threatening to keep the Union away from
the office force; by threatening to make it rough upon and to change the working
conditions of all and certain specific office employees and to make them regret they
had signed union cards; by threatening to get rid of the instigators and the leaders
of the Union and threatening that he could find a way of doing so if he wished- to,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. On August 30, 1954, by impliedly promising an-employee a wage increase to
all employees if the employees rejected the Union, Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. In August and September 1954, by interrogating employees concerning the
state of the employees' organization, why they wanted it, and what they knew about
it, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
6. In September 1954, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by changing their
regular hours of work and by changing the method of doing the office work, Re-
spondent thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of June
Davis and Grace Floyd, thereby discouraging membership in Warehouse and
Distribution Workers, Local 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section•8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
OF W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
'OF. W. Woolworth Company, supra
n N. L. R B. v Empress Publishing Co, 312 U S 426